https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10662

In re Estate of Kamami (Deceased) (Succession Cause 84 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 10662 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10662 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Succession Cause 84 of 2019 MN Mwangi, J June 26, 2026 IN THE ESTATE OF WILFRED MUIRURI KAMAMI (DECEASED) Between Mary Wairimu Gakobo Applicant and Ruth Wanjiru Muiruri 1st Respondent Alice Wanjugu Muiruri 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 25th September 2025 seeking orders that the respondents account for the rental income for the months of August and September 2025 amounting to Kshs 1,347, 318.00. She also seeks orders that the rental income of Kshs 673,659.00, be split into three equal amounts in favour of the three Administrators of the deceased’s Estate. She also prays for orders that the respondents pay her share out of the Kshs. 1,347,318.00 and involve her in the decision making of the Estate, in her capacity as a widow of the deceased, and as an Administrator/beneficiary of his Estate. She also prays for costs of the application. 2.The application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of it, and the supporting affidavit sworn on 25th September 2025 by the applicant herein, Ms Mary Wairimu Gakobo. Ms Gakobo averred that she is a co-administrator of the deceased’s Estate, and that one of the properties of the said Estate, known as Thika/Municipality 9/24 was generating a monthly income of Kshs.673,659.00 as at August 2025, which income was used to repay a loan at Ecobank until mid-July 2025, when it was fully cleared. She contended that the respondents took advantage of her and shared between themselves the rental income, which information she learnt from the Agent, Johari Real Estates Limited. 3.The applicant deposed that her Advocate wrote to the respondents’ Counsel on 22nd August 2025, proposing how the sums ought to be shared, but her proposal was ignored. She added that she tried to reach out to the respondents severally in person through phone calls and text messages, but they ignored her. 4.She averred that in September 2025, the respondents still shared the rental income between themselves and gave the Agent strict instructions not to share the statement with her. The applicant seeks appointment of a new Agent as the current one is a close relative of the respondents, and it is therefore extremely biased. 5.The applicant averred that the respondents have ill motive towards her and the Estate in general. She also added that the building is in a bad state, as the basement is flooded, the water pump is faulty, and the roofs on upper floors are leaking. She averred that she has reached out to the respondents to resolve the issues, but they ignored her request. The applicant proposed that part of the rental income should be spared, so as to put safety of tenants first. The applicant urged this Court to intervene and issue the orders sought. 6.In opposition to the application, the respondents herein, Ms Ruth Wanjiru Muiruri and Ms Alice Wanjugu Muiruri, jointly swore an affidavit on 3rd November 2025. They averred that the applicant is the third surviving spouse of the deceased, while they are the surviving children of the deceased’s first spouse. They stated that prior to the death of the deceased in 2015, he was utilizing the rental income, as well as income generated from Wilmar Flowers Ltd, to repay a loan facility at Ecobank. The respondents further stated that they were both Directors of Wilmar Flowers Ltd, even before the demise of the deceased and they were actively involved in the management of the said company. They stated that Wilmar Flowers Ltd had a loan with a private investor prior to the deceased’s demise, and the company continued to service the loan which remains outstanding and the rental income was also used to pay the same. 7.The respondents averred that since the demise of the deceased, all rental income has always been deposited in the account which is used to pay the outstanding debts, liabilities, upkeep and maintenance of the beneficiaries. They denied that they unlawfully distributed the proceeds for their own use to the exclusion of the applicant, as all their actions have been done in good faith, and that the applicant has always known about the said arrangements with no objection. 8.The respondents contended that as children of the deceased, they hold a superior claim than the applicant who is the deceased’s third spouse, as succession deals with inter-generational transfer of wealth from one generation to the other, with children being the ultimate destination of the Estate. They contended that the applicant’s right to the deceased’s Estate is only life interest. They stated that the instant application is without merits, as it is based on misapprehension of facts. They prayed and the application to be dismissed with costs. 9.This Court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. The applicant filed her submissions dated 11th March 2026 through the law firm of J. Ngumo Mbogo & Co. Advocates. The respondents filed their submissions dated 22nd May 2026 through the law firm of Millimo Muthomi & Co. Advocates. 10.Mr. Ngumo, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the respondents have been side-lining the applicant, yet she was receiving an allowance from the deceased prior to his demise. He stated that the respondents filed a protest against the proposed distribution of the deceased’s assets, which will delay the confirmation of the Grant and distribution of the said Estate. He urged this Court to intervene by giving directions as to how the income is to be spent and the right of the applicant to receive a share. 11.Mr. Muthomi, learned Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the application does not have evidence to show that the respondents have been using the rental income for personal gain or that there was wastage of the rental income. He stated that Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act provides that accounts should be rendered 6 months after confirmation of Grant and successful transmission, and it can only be done prior to that, if it is shown that the Administrator is unable to administer the Estate or is in continued waste of the same. 12.He indicated that there is an active protest which shows that the succession process is not yet over. He reiterated that the applicant has failed to prove that the Administrators are wasting away the Estate or that they are incapable of completing the transmission. 13.Mr. Muthomi indicated that the respondents have been utilizing the rental proceeds diligently and there is no mismanagement. He cited the case of Re Estate of Kamau (deceased) Succession Cause E123 of 2014 (2026) KEHC 3215 (KLR) 10 March 2026 (Ruling), which stated that Administrators of an Estate have a duty to collect assets, pay funeral expenses, pay debts and distribute the Estate in accordance with the law. Counsel contended that the issues raised regarding the Agent are not relevant. 14.He submitted that the applicant being the deceased’s third spouse only has a life interest in the Estate, while the respondents being children of the deceased have a superior interest, which shows that they do not have equal rights. He argued that the applicant has not provided any proof of intermeddling, misuse, wastage or mismanagement of the deceased’s Estate, which shows that the application lacks merits and it should be dismissed. Analysis And Determination. 15.I have considered the Notice of Motion application, as well as the supporting affidavit. I have also considered the replying affidavit and the written submissions by parties’ Advocates. The issue for determination is whether the application has merits to warrant orders for rendering accounts of rental income of the deceased’s Estate. 16.Section 83 of the Law of Succession Act specifies and lists the duties that a personal representative can perform as follows-(a)to provide and pay out of the estate of the deceased, the expenses of a reasonable funeral for him;(b)to get in all free property of the deceased, including debts owing to him and moneys payable to his personal representatives by reason of his death;(c)to pay, out of the estate of the deceased, all expenses of obtaining their grant of representation, and all other reasonable expenses of administration (including estate duty, if any);(d)to ascertain and pay, out of the estate of the deceased, all his debts;(e)within six months from the date of the grant, to produce to the court a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account;(f)subject to section 55, to distribute or to retain on trust (as the case may require) all assets remaining after payment of expenses and debts as provided by the preceding paragraphs of this section and the income therefrom, according to the respective beneficial interests therein under the will or on intestacy, as the case may be;(h)to produce to the court, if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, a full and accurate inventory of the assets and liabilities of the deceased and a full and accurate account of all dealings therewith up to the date of the account;(i)to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts and if required by the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any interested party in the estate, to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration.” 17.In this case, given that the applicant and the respondents are co-administrators of the deceased’s Estate, this Court finds that there should be transparency on how the Estate is run, in regard to the amounts of money paid in and out of the said Estate, for ease of eventual distribution of the assets. The respondents have only stated that the rental income is being utilized to repay a loan borrowed by Wilmar Flowers Limited from Ecobank, and that payment from the said rental income is also being paid to a private investor, whose name was not disclosed. The applicant asserted that the loan to Ecobank was repaid in July 2025, whereas the respondents maintain that repayment is ongoing. The respondents however failed to provide any evidence to show the amount of loan that was granted to Wilmar Flowers Limited, the amount that has been repaid, and the balance due and owing to both Ecobank and the undisclosed private investor. It is clear to this Court from the vagueness of the information given in their affidavit, that there is no transparency on the part of the respondents. 18.This Court finds that it is prudent to order the respondents to render accounts of the rental income of the deceased’s Estate, which should contain the details of the tenants, such as their names and the rent paid by each tenant per month. The respondents shall also provide a bank statement showing the inflow and outflow of monies received by the deceased’s Estate. The date and the purpose for each payment should also be disclosed. Receipts for monies received and paid out or acknowledgments for such monies, should be availed. 19.This Court notes that since the matter is not yet ripe for distribution of the deceased’s Estate, the Court cannot address the contestation raised by the respondents to the effect that as daughters of the deceased’s first spouse, they rank in priority to the applicant herein, who is the deceased’s third spouse. 20.This Court cannot also make an order for payment of a share to the applicant from the rental income of the Estate, until the accounts are rendered to Court pursuant to Section 83(h) of the Law of Succession Act. 21.This Court hereby partly allows the application and makes an order that the respondents shall render accounts for the rental income of the deceased’s Estate for the months of August and September 2025, within sixty (60) days hereof.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2026. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.NJOKI MWANGIJUDGEIn the presence of:-No appearance for the applicant/AdministratorMr. Muthomi for the Administrators/respondentsMs Julia – Court Assistant.